TOWN OF HINESBURG

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

October 11, 2006

Approved October 25, 2006

Commission Members Present: Jean Isham, Joe Iadanza, Joe Donegan, George Bedard, Fred Haulenbeek, Carrie Fenn, Kay Ballard, Nancy Norris.

Commission Members Absent: Johanna White.

Also Present: Alex Weinhagen (Director of Planning and Zoning), Heather Stafford (Recording Secretary), George Munson, Karla Munson, Debra Perry, Ken Brown, Carol Jenkins, Ann Brush, John Kiedaisch, David Lyman, Barbara Lyman, Paul Wieczoreck, George Dameron.

The meeting began at approximately 7:30 p.m.

I. Village Steering Committee Update - George Dameron

George Dameron, chair of the Hinesburg Village Steering Committee, handed out two documents about the Village Steering Committee's progress over the past year. The first document was a copy of the committee's description, membership and goals as outlined on the Hinesburg town web site. He explained that the committee is an advisory group consisting of 7 members with staggered terms of 1 - 2 years. November of this year will mark the beginning of the committee's second year. Within the past year the committee has developed a rough draft of recommendations for the village.

George began by briefly reviewing the recommendations with the Planning Commission and explaining that at the Village Steering Committee's next meeting they will begin working on the Village Master plan. The committee has discussed starting the process by projecting the town population in 2020 and what an ideal village would look like at that time to meet the needs and wants of that population. The committee could then work backwards from that point to develop a master plan. Alex clarified that while the PC is working on the village growth project this is different from the village master plan which is a more comprehensive look at the village. In addition, George said that he will ask the committee members to address the issue of the expanded village district. The committee would also like to complete a survey of historic buildings in the area that could result in a core archive that could be housed in the town library.

George also said that members of the VSC (Village Steering Committee) may not agree with all the changes suggested and/or implemented by the PC. Members have already expressed wanting to maintain Lantmans as an anchor in the village. He added that most members are in agreement with additional development to the north of town.

George said that the VSC meets monthly for approximately 1 - 1.5 hrs. The next meeting will be on November 13 at 7:00 pm in town hall. He added that Karla Munson has been working extensively on transportation issues in town. Nancy said that at one of the forums she attended someone had mentioned that there is a lot more money available to assist in the development of trails and bikeways than sidewalks. She suggested that the VSC look into creating more multi-use paths as opposed to sidewalks to see if more funding is available to assist the town in this endeavor.

Karla said that she had learned at the forums that the speed limit in town could be lowered to 25 mph if a petition is sent in to the state with enough signatures of town members. Jean thanked George and the rest of the VSC for all of their hard work and progress over the past year.

II. LaPlatte Headwaters Conservation Project on the Bissonette Farm Presentation - Andrea Morgante

Andrea explained that she is a member of the Hinesburg Land Trust which is an all-volunteer organization that is engaged in the town's master planning process. The Conservation Commission began working with the Bissonettes when they considered conserving their land. The corridor of land in this project runs South parallel along Silver Street to Lewis Creek. It serves as a good opportunity to preserve some prime agricultural soils as well as water sources of great significance to the state. Together with the Vermont Land Trust and the Trust for Public Land the Hinesburg Land Trust has been working to put together all applicable information for the LaPlatte Headwaters Conservation Project. The project will cost 3.7 million dollars and encompasses 628 acres and is one of the largest conservation projects in Vermont - particularly in Chittenden County.

The project offers many opportunities to protect and improve significant water resources. The members plan to devote a large portion of the project to restoring wetlands. Wetlands help to to hold phosphorus and sediment and keep it from being deposited in the lake which can cause algae problems and additional water quality issues. The plans showed a 330' buffer along both sides of the LaPlatte as recommended by the Fish and Wildlife department to protect wildlife habitats along the river.

To recognize the projects financial goal some housing sites have been researched on the property. This will enable the group to adequately compensate the landowner for his property. Extensive soil analysis was completed to ensure that the best house sites were determined. During this process the members considered: slopes, wildlife, scenic resources, prime agricultural soils, septic capacity and other valuable assets to conserve. The members hoped to limit views of homes from Gilman Road and 116 as well as to protect the possibility for future trail connectivity to the village and the existing VAST trail in this area. The pattern of development is dispersed and includes two possible tracts of land that could be sold to two farmers. The members have identified a conservation buyer for one of these tracts of land. The land would have a conservation easement on 158 acres and would allow the potential future development of 8 more house lots. Joe asked if the owner can post the land. Andrea said that they are currently negotiating on this point. The potential buyers do not have the intention of posting the land, but they would like to have the option to do so if the land is being abused.

The members are also hoping to add an affordability provision to the agricultural land tracts so that if an owner cannot sell the land to another farmer, the Land Trust would have the option of buying the land back to ensure that the farmland stays affordable. Future development will need to pass through Act 250 review as well as the local permitting process. The members hope to not restrict activities of farmers to a certain area and thereby to allow as much flexibility as possible for future crops.

Alex asked what public entity would be the recipient of the publicly owned land. Andrea said that perhaps it would be the town of Hinesburg, but this has not yet been determined. The members hope that this land will be utilized to protect the headwaters of the LaPlatt. This is very important because the river runs into Shelburne Bay which serves as a major water supply for Chittenden County.

Andrea added that there are two other future options for conservation potential in the area. The Land Trust currently has the right of first refusal on an 104 acre parcel as well as a 55 acre parcel with a farmhouse. The members of the Hinesburg Land Trust have worked hard to ensure that this project addresses several points as outlined in the town plan. They have also had tentative discussions with state officials to test the waters and determine if there are any issues that are a fatal flaw with the project. So far they have received positive feedback on this front.

Alex asked if the town is the most flexible owner for the public land due to the endangered species involved. Andrea said that the best course of action to take would be for an inventory and analysis to be completed to create a viable management plan to accommodate the recreational, ecological and financial needs for maintaining the property. Alex asked if it is possible for the land trust to hold on to the public parcel for a while. Andrea said that this is a possibility, but that typically the land trust is not interested in owning land. The members plan to develop several contingency plans for the public lands in the event that different potential landowners are not interested in the option. George Dameron noted that the current state administration seems to be discouraging taking on more conservation lands in the state. Andrea agreed that this is the current stance taken by the state.

Jean thanked Andrea for her presentation and for all the hard work that she and other members had put into this conservation project.

III. Affordable Housing

The board decided to discuss this topic at the next meeting. By then another meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee will have taken place and more information will be available to the PC.

IV. Transfer of Development Rights - Conceptual Discussion

Jean said that she had heard that South Burlington had implemented TDR and asked if the board had any information about how it is working for them. Alex said that he had received some information from the town planner in S. Burlington and that she had indicated that in order for it to work smoothly a very hot real estate market is needed as well as intermediators to bank density. Carrie said that initially she had seen TDR as a way to stave off angry landowners as a result of re-zoning but that the lack of simplicity and fairness involved did not have her convinced that this would be the case. George B. said that he had heard of towns using negotiated PRDs where a large open space is used to allow more dense development in another area. Joe said he thought an intermediary can help to tie together the two ends of the process since matching tracts of land may not be available on the sending and receiving ends at the same time.

Alex noted that Hinesburg is a more rural area than South Burlington and asked if there are more sending than receiving areas in town. If this is the case, how does the town determine who gets to be in the sending area. George B. said that he did not think that the projected town growth area will need to receive development rights in order to reach its new capacity.

Fred said he thought part of this issue centered on the town's commitment to preserve rural areas. He also asked how the town knows that a sending area was actually able to be developed. Fred noted that the town could buy rights to land that could never be developed in the first place. Joe D. said that he saw this issue as being comparable to the PRD rules which charge the DRB with comparing a potential conventional subdivision of the parcel with the proposed PRD to ensure that the number of proposed lots is possible on that lot under conventional subdivision regulations. Alex said that the regulations would need to equate a clear and consistent density value without using 'take-outs'. He added that the board could also consider that they were compensating owners for enjoyment of a natural resource as opposed to possible future development income.

Jean asked if there is a sufficient receiving area in the village to utilize TDR. Joe D. felt a full build-out of Hinesburg would be needed to determine this. Alex said that he did not feel the village has enough capacity to hold the number of receiving areas that would be necessary to put a dent in the conservation of rural areas. Joe I. suggested offering other compensation for rural landowners such as density bonuses for clustered developments and a penalty for not clustering homes. He was also concerned with how this would affect landowners who hope to give land to their children so that they may build a home on the land. Joe I. said he also did not know how to calculate density effectively on these lots. Alex suggested that perhaps three examples of different development patterns and their resulting densities could be presented to rural landowners to show them how different layouts could affect the number of overall lots available for sale. Jean suggested that the PC could use her property as an example for this project based on the recent appraisal that was completed.

Nancy asked if impact fees can be used to conserve rural lands. Alex said that he was not sure about this and Jean said she did not think this would be a feasible way to handle land conservation. Alex said that he could discuss land conservation priorities with the Hinesburg Land Trust. Jean said that although the land trust does fantastic work, they cannot handle every conservation project in town. Alex added that the Conservation Commission is working on an open space plan and is going to work with a consultant to help them correlate all the natural resource data that they have collected. They should have a plan for lands that they feel should be conserved as well as recommendations to keep other natural resources in tact. Jean said she thought it was important to mesh the development of the village with the development of the rural lands. Joe D. said that he felt TDR can be easily derailed if it is not well accepted in town. George B. added that the lack of available sewer allocations show that the town does not need to designate a sending area. Joe I. added that this issue could cause TDR to negatively affect the build out of the village.

The board determined that they will finish their work on the village re-zoning before moving on to the rural areas in town. Nancy pointed out that the PC cannot completed all the re-zoning at once and that they need to present something to the town on the work that has been completed so far.

Other Business:

Next Meeting

Affordable Housing will be discussed. The next meeting of the Affordable Housing Committee will take place on October 19th at 7:00 pm in Town Hall. The board will also receive an update from Susan Mead on proposed town open spaces at an upcoming meeting.

Assignments

Fred will look at the Mechanicsville Road area and the RR1 allowances allowed here. Jean will review the area at the South End of the Village near Buck Hill Road.

Joe D. asked if the board should ask the Blittersdorfs to talk to the board about renewable energy and the cost effectiveness of certain measures. The board would like to determine if regulations that incorporate renewable energy components could be implemented into all districts based on affordability and effectiveness. Alex said that he would call the Blittersdorfs to discuss this possibility.

Minutes of the September 27, PC Meeting

George MOVED to approve the minutes as written. Fred SECONDED the motion. The motion PASSED 6 - 0.

Green Points Movie

Carrie asked if anyone would be interested in screening this movie regarding utilizing green points in new home construction. Several members were interested.

Johanna White

Jean explained that Johanna has recently had brain surgery to remove a tumor. She is at home and recovering well but would like to take a year's leave of absence from the board if this is possible. If not, Johanna will resign from her position.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:20 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Heather Stafford

Recording Secretary